Boris is Boss

[Smudger]

Another section that have the wrong end of, then. I was under the impression that once revoked and agreement not to leave was settled upon, there was no way to reactivate it.

If anyone can say they're gonna leave, anytime, and then change their minds, and stay... until they want to threaten to leave again... it feels like a non-binding deal, a broken system waiting to be tested over and over.

And if that's the case, if we stay, who's the next country that's going to threaten to leave?

my head hurts, but I'm learning.

There was a whole court case around article 50, May etc were saying that once invoked, it can't be revoked, it got challenged in the courts, it was found that there was nothing to say it can't be revoked. There's nothing been said about re-invoking, but from what I've seen there's no barrier to it, other than Europe going 'FFS, not again, are you sure this time?'

[Saracen999]

....

5000 people out of 32million is a tiny sample size - period.

And I cant see which areas were covered so for me those stats are pointless.

Ummm ..... no.

Statistically, that simply isn't true, bekueve it or not, but in terms of polls it's much more complicated that simple sampling.

A combination of the Law of Large Numbers (LLN) and Central Limit Theorem shows that for most purposes, the minimum sample size is about 30, and you usually gain little benefit from going about 100.

But before people jump on that, let me clarify.

When doing statistics of this type, what you're really looking for is two things :-

1) A predicted result, value, outcome, etc, and
2) An idea of how reliable that result is, i.e. a confidence level.

At it's most basic, true randomised sampling predicts that such samples trend towards a 'correct" value. And the bigger the sample size (as a proportion of overall population), the more confident you can be in the result. So sample size in a single population is about confidence levels.

And by the way, I'm taking some gross liberties with both simplification and terminology.

Watch hiw an auditor works. They'll take a look at the 'population' being audited, say, purchase invoices. They'll work out how many there are, and determine a sample size that, in my experience, is almost invariably between 30 and 100, even if there are hundreds of thousands of invoices. This is aimed at giving a confidence level of about 5%.

The problem is that because of the maths, increasing sample size gives increasingky small imptovements in confidence level and after a point, the massively increasing cost of upping the sample size, theoretically until "sampke" size = population size .... i.e., examine every invoice.

So, sample size is generally determined by the required, yet practical, confidence level required. Which in turn is at least partially determined by the reason you're gathering the data. I mean, does the chocolate bar you're making fall between 50g and 52g is a tad less important than whether the widget you're making for a safety critical function in a passenger airliner.

For most such simple statistical exercises, a sample size of 5000 is huge, and very likely unjustiable on cost grounds.


But then, political polling is a whole different game.

For a start, you're now almost certainly talking about stratified sampling. The population is not homogenous. A constituency in the North East is likely to exhibit different fundamental trends from leafy Surrey .... or Hampstead.

So is that sample of 5000 a sample of 5000? I doubt it. More likely, 100 polls of 50, or 50 of 100.

But then you have to know how the polling company picked which seats to sample. If they picked 100 Tory strongholds, they just might get a misleading exit poll.

Couldn't happen? There's a classic story of an American polling company in the 50's doing a Presidental poll and getting a result suggesting a huge Republican win. In the actual election, it was a significant Democrat win.

A subsequent polling post-mortem discovered it had been a telephone poll, and in those days if you had a phone you sere affluent, and if you were afluent you were most likely to vote ..... see where this is going?

My point?

It's largely about how the polling is devised. And we rarely know that, and news media certainly never tell us .... because we'd glaze over if they tried.


So .... 5000?

Exactly which locations were polled? How does that choice reflect stratification? What strata are we talking about .... Tory/Labour/Other traditions, men/women, tyoical age, racial breakdown, pro or anti-Brexit, and so on.

Because if done right, 50 locations of 100 samples could be pretty accurate, but is you get the locations wrong for the rekevant strata, the whole thing will be cobblers.

Which brings me to the end, and a favoured quote, usually but not exclusively attributed to Disraeli ..... Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

[Spud1]

So, wasnt that a dissapointing hour, with all of us nonthewiser.

Boris just ranted on repeating the same lies and his brexit position.
Corbyn handed Boris a free pass to do exactly that by refusing to give a position or view on Brexit.

No time was spent on anything else substantial as a result.

Not to mention that two important UK parties - the SNP and Lib dems, were not even invited.

meh.

[TeePee]

Not to mention that two important UK parties - the SNP and Lib dems,

Lol.

[Hoonigan]

Lol.

Why say lot word when few word do trick.

[TeePee]

Why say lot word when few word do trick.

I feel like I covered it.

[neonplanet40]

I just saw the SNP First Minster on the seperate ITV show. I thought she was excellent. I have no doubt that adding her and the lib dem leader would have led to a much richer live debate. Especially as they referred to the SNP so much. Not having them there to defend themselves was reprehensible. Instead, we got the bore fest with no detail that was bojo and Jeremy. I thought it was pathetic with the audience cheering each leader on like immature fanboys at a pop concert. Overall, a sad and despairing tone. Especially as that's the best the UK has to offer (as no one else was invited to the debate with them two). If ever there was an advert for changing our electoral system, that was it.

As for your 'lol' comment - it only further highlights why we need to leave this 'union' of 'equals'. Its a shame that rigorous debate is frowned upon amongst our politicians.

[TeePee]

I just saw the SNP First Minster on the seperate ITV show. I thought she was excellent. I have no doubt that adding her and the lib dem leader would have led to a much richer live debate. Especially as they referred to the SNP so much. Not having them there to defend themselves was reprehensible. Instead, we got the bore fest with no detail that was bojo and Jeremy. I thought it was pathetic with the audience cheering each leader on like immature fanboys at a pop concert. Overall, a sad and despairing tone. Especially as that's the best the UK has to offer (as no one else was invited to the debate with them two). If ever there was an advert for changing our electoral system, that was it.

As for your 'lol' comment - it only further highlights why we need to leave this 'union' of 'equals'. Its a shame that rigorous debate is frowned upon amongst our politicians.

I'd live to see debate, and the idea of Sturgeon and Swinton debating would be far more interesting than BoJo and Corbyn, as individuals. My Lol is at at the idea that these have somehow managed to remain as 'Major' parties.

The Lib Dems essentially betrayed their entire base the second they had a sniff of power as part of the coalition, and should have faded in to obscurity, but are at it again with their Remain BS.

Meanwhile the SNP has tied themselves to the failed independence movement. I wish them the best of luck, and as I mentioned before, I really hope there is another independence referendum in a few years, but the idea of an independent Scotland joining the EU is a joke.

[Saracen999]

So, wasnt that a dissapointing hour, with all of us nonthewiser.

....

Not to mention that two important UK parties - the SNP and Lib dems, were not even invited.

I thoroughly enjoyed the hour. I watched a catch-up recording of the latest Walking Dead episode.

Oh wait, you mean that political thingy that was on? You didn't did you? You actually watched it? And didn't expect what you appear to have received? Oh, dear.


As for "important UK parties", well, that's debatable.

For the SNP, in what sense is it a UK party? That it's a party and in part of the UK? How many seats outside Scotland do the SNP stand in?

And the popular vote at the last (2017) General Election?

Tory        13,636,684
Labour	    12,878,460	
SNP            977,569

Or to put that in terms of % of the vote, Tory=42.4%, Labour=40%, SNP=3%.

So in terms of a UK wide General Election, not that important. in Scotland, sure. In the UK, hardly. And there is a mathematically 0.0% chance they will end up in No.10, leading the country.

The LibDems have a better case, but even they only managed a bit under 2.4m, which while 2.5x the size of the SNP is less than 20% of the vote for either Tory or Labour.

The debate's thesis was the two potential UK Prime Minister's facing off, head to head. The instant you up that to include anybody that doesn't have a chance of being the next PM, you turn it from a face-off to a round-robin of mini-election broadcasts.

Or maybe we should include the Monster Raving Loonies. At least they can be good entertainment.

[[GSV]Trig]

Politics.
The closer Corbyn gets to power the more of an idiot he seems to make of himself and Labour.
The more of an idiot Corbyn makes himself sound the more and more stupid stuff BoJo does..

Neither of them is helping themselves..

[Zak33]

Politics.
The closer Corbyn gets to power the more of an idiot he seems to make of himself and Labour.
The more of an idiot Corbyn makes himself sound the more and more stupid stuff BoJo does..

Neither of them is helping themselves..

this sums up the hopeless lost world in which we find ourselves.


Who on earth do we choose? It;s just the worst set of choices ever!!!!

[TeePee]

this sums up the hopeless lost world in which we find ourselves.


Who on earth do we choose? It;s just the worst set of choices ever!!!!

I mean, as far as UK elections go, maybe. But the French and US elections have both had worse options!!

[Zak33]

I mean, as far as UK elections go, maybe. But the French and US elections have both had worse options!!

that SHOULD be funny.. but it's just making me sadder

[spacein_vader]

I mean, as far as UK elections go, maybe. But the French and US elections have both had worse options!!

We've had worse too. Thatcher saw off a bunch of political lightweights in the 80s and Blair did the same a few years later. The difference now is that both sides are so poor at the same time.

[[GSV]Trig]

I know, its not even funny...

Corbyn is just not a leader, maybe a #3 or #4 but not PM material..

BoJo, and a few other Tories seem to have taken this as a cue to just do and say stupid things with no fear of Corbyn getting the PM's job, its like the babysitter starting off drinking your beers, then nicking stuff from your house and banging your significant other, knowing that the only other babysitter option is Gary Glitter...

[Saracen999]

....

Who on earth do we choose? It;s just the worst set of choices ever!!!!

Our choices maybe.

But if I had to pick between choosing Corbyn v. BoJo or Clinton v. Trump ....... ummmmm.

Plead the 5th?

Or just try to find an unoccupied Himalayan cave to hide in for 5 years, and hope there's still a planet to come out to?

The bright side? I hear they're getting serious about a manned trip to Mars. Sounds appealling about now. It should take years at a minimum with only a reasonable (acceptable) risk of dying in the cold, dark emptiness of deep space, where they can't hear you scream. Where do I sign up?